Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[tusenfem]

Having gone through the second part of Birkeland's paper, I must conclude that there is nothing specific about the sun that is discussed in there. It is mainly showing that Störmer is wrong in his assumption that the aurora is created by positively charged corpuscules, and some more discussion about climate effects from variations of the Sun, etc. So, I guess I have to go back to Birkeland's books on the auroral expidition and look at the pages he cited above.

However, I did ponder on what Birkeland wrote and specifically his term "rayons helio-cathodiques" or translated "helio-cathode rays." I think that the main quote from his paper in this case is:

... que j'eus l'idée que nous avions à faire à des rayons cathodiques très puissants que j'ai appelés les rayons hélio-cathodiques; j'ai calculé que la tension électrique négative nécessaire à la projection de ces rayons était de 600 millions de volts.

... that I had the idea that we would have to make very strong cathode rays, that I have called helio-cathode rays; I have calculated that the negative electric tension necessary for the emission of these rays is about 600 million volts.

So, the sun emits very strong cathode rays, which is early 20th century speak for electrons. However, the energy of these cathode rays should be so immense 600 million volts, that I guess Birkeland could not envision how such an energy would be possible in the laboratory or on Earth, so he decided to call them "helio-cathode rays," just a very energetic subset of cathode rays.

Hehehehehe I just found this link to Christiania videnskabs-selskab where there is an english translation of the french paper, go figure!

So, where does this bring us?

I think the following. Birkeland experimented with his terrellas, and also wanted to make a link to things he observed on the sun. Now, from what he wrote in the now-discussed paper, he does think that there are positive and negative corpuscules emitted by the Sun. However, I do think that Birkeland did not mean that the Sun is a cathode (though maybe in his book he may state otherwise I need to check that) because "cathode" is always accompanied by "ray" and as an experimental scientist working with electricity all the time, I am sure Birkeland also understood that cathodes do not emit positive corpuscules. I am, therefore, also not sure whether the New York Times reporter has written it up wrongly or that Birkeland was indeed mistaken about the depositing of platinum on objects connected to the anode.

Next step, back to pages 580-571 and 536-540 of the book and see what we learn there.

For the rest, MM can jump in anytime to give his interpretation of what I have just discussed here.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

MM, meet MM.

You really don't understand how the empirical game is played, do you? Birkeland's model is purely empirical. It works in the lab. You and I are both allowed to "scale' anything that is "empirically demonstrated" in the lab to whatever size might be necessary to explain what we see in space. As long as neither one of us proposes anything that that fails to show up on the Earth on any scale, it's fine. Anything that doesn't show up on Earth on any scale is a horse of a different color (non empirical color). Get the idea yet?

(this is from the rather lengthy Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not? thread)

Thermodynamics is ""empirically demonstrated" in the lab", it "works in the lab".

So, everyone (not just MM and DRD) "are [...] allowed to "scale' [...] to whatever size might be necessary to explain what we see in space"; let's say the Sun.

When we do that, we find that a solid iron (or calcium ferrite, or ...) shell is thermodynamically impossible^.

(we can repeat this using the mechanical properties of iron, or calcium ferrite; same result)^.

Has MM himself thus provided a very powerful demonstration of the physical impossibility of MM's own solar "model"!

We can repeat this exercise, and show that Mozcharge is equally impossible, ditto Mozeparation and Mozplasma (also here).

Note that all of these things "fail to show up on the Earth on any scale"; and as they don't "show up on Earth on any scale" each must be "a horse of a different color (non empirical color)".

The remaining three Moz-thingies I have identified - so far, in this thread alone - also don't "show up on Earth on any scale", so each must be "a horse of a different color (non empirical color)": Mozode, Mozwind, and Moztronium.

It is entirely logical and consistent to conclude from this that MM is hypocritical, and deeply cynical to boot; however, I think it is more likely that MM simply has such a poor grasp of physics that he doesn't even realise just how thoroughly he himself has skewered his own ideas.

^ several people have shown this, in several different threads here in JREF; Zig's posts on this, in this thread, are the most recent that I recall

 

[ben m]

The size of the outline of the RD disk will also be critical to this solar model. If the size of the disk is consistent with the surface of the photosphere, then the ionization state of the photosphere must be considerably lower than I presume. If it's smaller than the surface of the photosphere, then your mainstream theory has a problem and this solar model passed another critical test.

So you've got one model (the SSM) whose details you've chosen to ignore; another model that you can't actually draw a diagram of; and you're going to compare them using a technique that you don't appear to understand very well. Yeah, that sounds promising.

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks Tusenfen!

 

[Reality Check]

So if there is no moving light in the image the image will look the same from frame to frame. If there is it will show that.
It would be useless if it did not show useful information like details of movement from frame to frame using light.
You could be seeing the movement of the flare reflecting off of the features in question.

That is half correct: If you have an external light source to produce light to reflect off a solid surface then you will see the changes in light in an RD image.
However:

• The Sun has no external moving light sources (all the light sources are the Sun!) and
• there are no surfaces for any hypothetical light to reflect off because the original images are from material at a temperature of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K.

Thus we are not "seeing the movement of the flare reflecting off of the features in question".

 

[GeeMack]

A RD image is just a subtraction of the previous image(s) from frame to frame. They use it to pick out the finer details of movement.

No. It absolutely is not. That's not what it is and that's not what it's used for. And "they", the professional astrophysicists and solar imagery analysts at LMSAL and NASA who generate these graphs, would tell you you're wrong.

A running difference image is a graph, a simple visual representation of a series of mathematical calculations. Each pixel in a running difference graph gets its value as the result of a simple mathematical subtraction of the values of the corresponding pixels in a pair of source images. The word "difference" does not mean it shows the stuff in the picture that has changed. The word "difference" is used to denote a mathematical change, a change in value, purely and simply quantitative.

It's not like the difference between a photo of an empty field and a photo of the same field with a horse in it. It's like the difference between 7 and 4. The answer is 3. It's math, brantc. Math. Until you and Michael learn how these images are made, why they're made, and other relevant details like how and where the source data is obtained, neither of you will be remotely qualified to make any sort of valid, qualified, or substantiated comment on the matter of running difference graphs.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not like the difference between a photo of an empty field and a photo of the same field with a horse in it. It's like the difference between 7 and 4. The answer is 3.

This is where you are dead wrong and have been wrong since day one. The difference image begins with two images of *real things*. The fact that the sun is round means that the RD images will produce a "disk" rather than say a triangle or a square. It is the "real things" in the original images that provide the "shapes" we see in the RD images. The RD image of a horse in the field (and the same shot without the horse) would in fact produce an outline of the horse! That's the whole problem with your concepts in a nutshell GM. You've never comprehended how the mathematical RD process relates to "real things". In your mind it's nothing but a mathematical graph, but in reality the shapes in the image are directly related to real things and real physical processes that occurred in the original images. The outline of the horse in the field in the RD image would be very clearly in the shape of a horse! It wouldn't look like the number 3.

 

[brantc]

That is half correct: If you have an external light source to produce light to reflect off a solid surface then you will see the changes in light in an RD image.
However:

• The Sun has no external moving light sources (all the light sources are the Sun!) and
• there are no surfaces for any hypothetical light to reflect off because the original images are from material at a temperature of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K.

Thus we are not "seeing the movement of the flare reflecting off of the features in question".

A flare is an external moving light source. i.e. Not the same as the surface of interest.

It doesnt matter what temperature the plasma that the light comes from is.
That EUV light will still reflect off of a surface. Its still light.

The only difference between the light that you see and the light from a flare is that you need a detector that is sensitive to that frequency to convert it to something that you can see.

This light will still reflect off of something no matter what the temperature.

So if there are solid surface features then it is the same as looking at a 171A light bulb reflecting from a nearby mountain as the light moves upward.

 

[ben m]

The RD image of a horse in the field (and the same shot without the horse) would in fact produce an outline of the horse!

It'll produce TWO outlines of the horse (one positive, one negative) plus two outlines of anything else that's moved transverse to the line of sight---clouds, wind-blown foliage, shadows, etc.---plus a positive spot wherever something bright faded out, plus a negative spot wherever something initially dark grew brighter. And no particular effect to something that moved along the line of sight.

Don't type a response to this post. Draw a diagram instead. Remember diagrams? They're important.

 

[Ziggurat]

It doesnt matter what temperature the plasma that the light comes from is.
That EUV light will still reflect off of a surface. Its still light.

Except the visible surface of the sun (whether it's solid or not) isn't reflective.

This light will still reflect off of something no matter what the temperature.

Not if it's not reflective. You know what things that don't reflect light are called? Black bodies. You know what the spectrum of the sun is? A black body spectrum. You know what that means, brantc? It won't reflect light.

 

[Reality Check]

The reality is that no RD image can show a solid surface on the Sun because no such surface exists. The first points in Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked! apply to any solid surface:

• Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible? First asked 8 July 2009. See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
• Why this iron crust is thermodynamically impossible
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IV

And in case you have forgotten:

• The photosphere is at a temperature of ~5700 K and is plasma.
• Everything above the photosphere is at a greater temperature and is a plasma.
• The temperature of the Sun is measured to increase with depth in the photosphere. This means that there is an internal heat source (the fusion at the core). Thus everything inside the photosphere is > 5700 K and is a plasma.

A flare is an external moving light source. i.e. Not the same as the surface of interest.

A flare is a moving internal light source from plasma. The original flare is in the image. It is a not source that is outside of the image or shining on the Sun. All of the light comes from plasma on the Sun.

It doesnt matter what temperature the plasma that the light comes from is.
That EUV light will still reflect off of a surface. Its still light.

The point is that there is no surface to reflect off at the temperature of the plasma. All of the EUV light is emitted from plasma that is at a temperature of > 160,000 K. Nothing is solid at that temperature.

 

[Dancing David]

Um Brantc,

Hi, the UV you are talking about will have a penetration of about 3.5 meter through the plasma of the upper photosphere, so it would not make sense to say that the ligyt wa sreflecting off of anything lower that 3.6 meters.

So pick the frequency you would like to discuss, but most of the ones MM discussed were at frequencies that are not going to go very far.



The average transmission through the photosphere is around ~350 km.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This is where you are dead wrong and have been wrong since day one. The difference image begins with two images of *real things*. The fact that the sun is round means that the RD images will produce a "disk" rather than say a triangle or a square. It is the "real things" in the original images that provide the "shapes" we see in the RD images. The RD image of a horse in the field (and the same shot without the horse) would in fact produce an outline of the horse!

The highlighted text emphasizes the central problem with Michael Mozina's interpretation of RD images: the features that show up most clearly in RD images are the ephemeral, non-persistent, non-rigid, non-solid, not-really-there, not-so-real-after-all things.

For example, the horse in the pasture shows up clearly because it's evanescent: it's there in first photo, and not there in the next. The real and permanent features of the pasture do not show up clearly in the RD image. Grass will show up faintly, because it moves with the wind. Boulders, fences, and other solid objects won't show up in the RD image at all (assuming perfect registration).

That's for a stationary pasture. With RD images of a rotating body, the edges of all features that lie perpendicular to the direction of rotation will show up more clearly than edges that lie parallel to the direction of rotation. Because that's true for all features, RD images of rotating bodies are essentially useless if your goal is to find rigid or solid features. If anything, the non-rigid, non-solid features will show up more clearly than the rigid/solid features, leading incautious observers to draw precisely the wrong conclusions.

 

[GeeMack]

This is where you are dead wrong and have been wrong since day one. The difference image begins with two images of *real things*.

The running difference graphs containing the optical illusions that look like the Sun has a solid surface start with images which are created by thermal characteristics. And those source images are also graphs. They are two dimensional representations of the amount of photon activity recorded coming from a three dimensional region in the Sun's atmosphere, typically a few thousand to dozens of thousands of kilometers above the photosphere.

The filters used for the source imagery are recording photons released within particular thermal ranges. All of those photons being recorded are coming from the corona, thousands of kilometers above your imagined solid surface. Those photons are the real things, and none of them are coming from 4800 kilometers into the photosphere.

The fact that the sun is round means that the RD images will produce a "disk" rather than say a triangle or a square.

The fact that there are changes in the values of corresponding pixels between one source image and the next is why any particular pixel will have any particular value of light or dark.

It is the "real things" in the original images that provide the "shapes" we see in the RD images.

By the time any source solar imagery is processed into a running difference graph, there are no real things left. Photons emitted thousands of kilometers above the photosphere are recorded to create the original data. A running difference graph is a visual representation of the difference (as in the mathematical concept of subtraction) between the quantitative values of corresponding pixels from the source data.

The RD image of a horse in the field (and the same shot without the horse) would in fact produce an outline of the horse! That's the whole problem with your concepts in a nutshell GM.

The running difference graph would show an outline of a horse because when the value of one pixel is subtracted from the value of another, there will likely be a greater difference (as in the mathematical concept of subtraction) in the value of the pixels between the two source images in that part of the graph. Where the brown of the horse is the same color value as the brown of the tree behind him, the pixel in the running difference graph will be 0x80 in hexadecimal, 127 in decimal, neutral, no change. In order to formulate a qualified and informed opinion on the issue of running difference graphs, you must understand this.

You've never comprehended how the mathematical RD process relates to "real things".

Your qualifications to understand math at a level necessary to understand this material have been challenged, and since you have been unable to demonstrate that you possess those qualifications, your unqualified and subjective opinion on issues of mathematical processes is worthless to this discussion.

In your mind it's nothing but a mathematical graph, but in reality the shapes in the image are directly related to real things and real physical processes that occurred in the original images.

Wrong. A running difference image is, not just in my mind but in the stark cold reality of objective science as well, nothing but a mathematical graph. The value of each pixel is determined by nothing more than applying a simple mathematical formula to the values of corresponding pixels in a pair of source images. Where X is the numerical value of a pixel from the first image and Y is the numerical value of the corresponding pixel in the second image, Z is the value of the pixel in that location in the running difference output... (Y + 127) - X = Z. If Z is less than 0, make it 0. If Z is more than 255, make it 255. Every single blessed solitary pixel. It's nothing but a mathematical graph. Junior high school math.

The outline of the horse in the field in the RD image would be very clearly in the shape of a horse! It wouldn't look like the number 3.

Each pixel would be the result of a mathematical calculation and would have a value typically expressed as a number somewhere between 0 and 255. Each pixel would indeed be a number represented by a shade of gray. To understand this properly one would need to be qualified to add and subtract three digit numbers.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[brantc]

No. It absolutely is not. That's not what it is and that's not what it's used for. And "they", the professional astrophysicists and solar imagery analysts at LMSAL and NASA who generate these graphs, would tell you you're wrong.

A running difference image is a graph, a simple visual representation of a series of mathematical calculations. Each pixel in a running difference graph gets its value as the result of a simple mathematical subtraction of the values of the corresponding pixels in a pair of source images. The word "difference" does not mean it shows the stuff in the picture that has changed. The word "difference" is used to denote a mathematical change, a change in value, purely and simply quantitative.

It's not like the difference between a photo of an empty field and a photo of the same field with a horse in it. It's like the difference between 7 and 4. The answer is 3. It's math, brantc. Math. Until you and Michael learn how these images are made, why they're made, and other relevant details like how and where the source data is obtained, neither of you will be remotely qualified to make any sort of valid, qualified, or substantiated comment on the matter of running difference graphs.

Ok. How do they come up with they pixel numbers to operate on??????????

From the previous frames. So in your explanation. Lets say that the current frame pixel #1 is 7 and the previous frame pixel #1 is 4. So the new pixel is 3. It would be darker than either of the current pixels.

So if you had a light spot (7 horse) that went away (0-no horse) the difference is -7 but they would cut it off at 0.. If the horse moved sideways, you would still see the horse and its side ways movement because of the changes in the pixels from frame to frame.

It is the 'mathematical'(subtraction) difference between the current pixels and the previous pixels. Running difference movie. Subtraction of the previous frame from the current one.
This changes from frame to frame giving you a mathematical representation of the unprocessed movies, showing you real features..

"From Sungrazing comet observed by COR1 on June 16, 2008."
A sungrazing comet is seen by COR1 as it approaches the Sun and is destroyed. This movie is shown in the "running difference" format, where each image has an earlier image subtracted from it, to make the faint comet stand out from the much brighter solar corona."
http://cor1.gsfc.nasa.gov/movies/
http://cor1.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/movies/comet20080616_rd.mpg

i.e. To see details.......

Usually they use a movie to produce running difference movies.

So I dont see how my description is different from what you said.

 

[brantc]

The reality is that no RD image can show a solid surface on the Sun because no such surface exists.

That is another day.

All I'm saying is IF there was a solid surface nearby, the light at 171 would reflect off of it.

A flare is a moving internal light source from plasma. The original flare is in the image. It is a not source that is outside of the image or shining on the Sun. All of the light comes from plasma on the Sun.

The flare is not on the objects of interest. It is external to the object of interest therefore it will reflect off of it.
A flare is a moving light source that is brighter than the surrounding light sources and is moving upward.
It may be below the corona but it is still moving independently from surrounding light sources therefore it can reflect off of other features(assuming they would reflect as opposed to scatter or absorb)..

The point is that there is no surface to reflect off at the temperature of the plasma. All of the EUV light is emitted from plasma that is at a temperature of > 160,000 K. Nothing is solid at that temperature.

It doesnt matter where the light comes from, it still reflects IF there was something that was solid nearby, the light emitted from the object @ 171 would reflect off of something solid just like light at 650nm, 700nm, 1600A or any other light.

 

[brantc]

Except the visible surface of the sun (whether it's solid or not) isn't reflective.

Not if it's not reflective. You know what things that don't reflect light are called? Black bodies. You know what the spectrum of the sun is? A black body spectrum. You know what that means, brantc? It won't reflect light.

Conversely you could also say that a blackbody spectrum is the property of solid matter. This "surface of last scattering" is a bunch of hooey.

Blackbodies reflect light, otherwise you couldnt see it, other than the sun which is emission mostly.

 

[GeeMack]

This is where you are dead wrong and have been wrong since day one. [...] That's the whole problem with your concepts in a nutshell GM. You've never comprehended how the mathematical RD process relates to "real things".

Since I indeed do comprehend how the mathematical running difference processing relates to real things, and have said so and demonstrated that I do, your claim that I have never understood that is a lie.

 

[Dave_46]

Conversely you could also say that a blackbody spectrum is the property of solid matter. This "surface of last scattering" is a bunch of hooey.

Blackbodies reflect light, otherwise you couldnt see it, other than the sun which is emission mostly.

Even I know that the bit I bolded is cobblers.

Dave

 

[Reality Check]

That is another day.

All I'm saying is IF there was a solid surface nearby, the light at 171 would reflect off of it.

That is correct. IF there was a physica;;y impossible solid surface on the Sun then the light at 171 would reflect off of it.

The flare is not on the objects of interest. It is external to the object of interest therefore it will reflect off of it.
A flare is a moving light source that is brighter than the surrounding light sources and is moving upward.
It may be below the corona but it is still moving independently from surrounding light sources therefore it can reflect off of other features(assuming they would reflect as opposed to scatter or absorb)..

The object of interest(to me) is the Sun.
But if you want to call the flare external then that is Ok.
Then all of the light sources on the Sun are external.